*3.2. Socio-Economic Sphere—Layer of the Landscape: SA-CEFs as Brownfields*

The analysis of available data shows that in the Moravian-Silesian Region a line of A-CEFs was created with a total number of 896 objects, of which 591 are still existing, 40 were destroyed (but the remains of the building are still visible), 16 were initiated but not finished, another 182 were obliterated for various reasons and 67 were planned but their construction was never started (unbuilt). The overall state of A-CEFs (including UA-CEFs) in the Moravian-Silesian Region is presented in Figure 3. This line of A-CEFs (or UA-CEFs) was also supplemented in Moravian-Silesian Region by units of heavy fortifications including artillery logs (which was not the aim of the survey). Brownfield in the built-up area of a municipality can represent an economic and social burden (Figure A4B).

The categorization into individual sections is shown in Table 1. The results obtained in the field survey (2014–2021) based on the proposed methodology (chapter) are presented in Tables A1–A5. These 39 SA-CEFs units and their selected characteristics were further studied for zoological survey purposes.

**Figure 3.** Percentage of the current structural and technical condition of A-CEFs (respectively UA-CEFs) in the Moravian-Silesian Region (*n* = 896).


**Table 1.** Summary table of SA-CEFs within each section for further data processing.

Based on our own field survey were found the following rates of human use for each SA-CEF were: 7 units were intensively used, 16 units were occasionally used and 16 units were not used—Figure 4A. The rate of human use was assessed primarily by the presence of artifacts associated with recent and repeated human presence (tables, chairs, lounge chairs, kitchen equipment, food remains, but also activities associated with efforts to restore the property to its original condition, etc.).

The rate of human use of these units is certainly related to the access restrictions. The data shows that most of these units are open and therefore accessible (26), a large proportion is accessible due to overcoming barriers (12), while only one unit of the SA-CEFs is completely closed and therefore inaccessible—Figure 4B. These were, for example, SA-CEFs in front of whose entrance was overgrown with trees, bushes, and/or partially grounded.

**Figure 4.** (**A**)—Rate of human use of indoor environment in SA-CEFs (*n* = 39); (**B**)—Entrance accessibility in SA-CEFs (*n* = 39); (**C**)—Type of SA-CEF's surrounding exterior environment (*n* = 39); (**D**)—Distribution of SA-CEF's owners (*n* = 39).

Along with the previous two factors—the rate of human use and accessibility of entrance—the location of SA-CEFs units in the landscape may also be related simultaneously. For this reason, a simple analysis of their external environment was carried out and from a total of 39 SA-CEFs, 18 were located in open landscape (meadows, pastures, fields), 10 were located in closed landscapes (forests, scrub) and the remaining 11 SA-CEFs were located in the transitional zone (forest edges, etc.)—Figure 4C.

According to the analysis of property rights, the SA-CEFs were divided into the following categories: government, church administration, personal (physical persons, joint property of married couples, associations, and cooperatives), and the last category is the 'not found' owners—where the SA-CEFs have not been entered in the land register or have an unidentified owner.

From the selected 39 SA-CEFs, only 14 units were owned by the government, and 17 were privately owned ('personal'). In addition, 6 units were owned by a church administration, and 3 units were classified as 'not found' (owner is unknown or owner was insufficiently identified)—Figure 4D. For one of the SA-CEF (number 17), it was determined that part of this SA-CEF is owned by a person and part is owned by the government—for this reason, the data set of Figure 4D is divided into 40 units.
